Template talk:Authority control

Edit request 5 June 2024

Description of suggested change: Edit Module:Authority control/config to insert Parliament of Australia ID underneath "ARLHS":

Note: tested at Module:Authority control/sandbox and works accordingly (see here and here).

{'AUSPARL',
  property = 10020,
  section = 6,
  pattern = '[0-9A-Z]+',
  link = 'https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=$1',
  label = 'Parliament of Australia MP ID',
},

GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Could the label be shortened somehow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps AUPARL, similar to UKPARL? GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sorry, I misread your question, perhaps "Australian Parliament", "AUS Parliament", or "Parliament of Australia" could work? — GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy with whichever one of those you think is best. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Australian Parliament GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. For future info, we have Module:Authority control/config/staging to prepare code for deploying to live version. So you can leave people's experiments in Module:Authority control/config/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I have found a better URL from which 'https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=$1' is sourced from. It is https://handbook.aph.gov.au/Parliamentarian/$1 I have already changed it in the wikidata property. Thank you. GMH Melbourne (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@GMH Melbourne: are there additional edits to be made, or is this resolved? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Yes, at Module:Authority control/config, replace 'https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=$1' with 'https://handbook.aph.gov.au/Parliamentarian/$1' GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done and tested. MSGJ, I made the change directly to the live template after testing with URLs. Do I also need to make the change to /sandbox or /staging for the future? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, that is sensible, otherwise the change may be overwritten the next time we synchronise with the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

EU MEP (1186) addition

MEP directory ID (P1186) might be interesting and straightforward to implement. Ipr1 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is template {{MEP directory ID}} which used currently. Ipr1 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add it to Module:Authority control/config/sandbox and give us an example here. It would also be helpful if you could provide some more background on this identifier — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ELMCIP ID (P12204)

I propose that we add the ELMCIP ID (P12204) that links to the ELMCIP Knowledge Base (Q113705072). It would go in the Other section. Peaceray (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please add it to Module:Authority control/config/sandbox and give us an example here. Some more background on this identifier would be useful too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Authority control on redirects

Is there a consensus on whether {{authority control}} should be placed on redirects? I placed some by hand a few months ago, and I just noticed that User:Eejit43/scripts/redirect-helper automatically removes them. I can think of three possibilities:

1. {{authority control}} should be placed on redirects; scripts are encouraged to add it, and definitely should not automatically remove it.
2. {{authority control}} may be placed on redirects, as a local editorial decision for each redirect; it should not be automatically added or removed.
3. {{authority control}} should not be placed on redirects; editors and scripts may freely and automatically remove it.

I looked in the archives, but all I found on the topic were two small discussions from ten years and eight years ago.

It may be relevant that {{r with Wikidata item}} allows navigating to the same information, but {{authority control}} better communicates that the information exists in the first place. (Not all Wikidata items have the sort of external identifiers that {{authority control}} deals with.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with including this template on redirects, and I have added quite a few myself. I don't think the script should be removing these without asking — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eejit43 pinging for your comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Not all Wikidata items have the sort of external identifiers that {{authority control}} deals with."? How so? All ids in the template come from Wikidata in the first place. I see no reason to place this on redirects (and definitely not that it "should" be done), redirects aren't meant to be seen and we also don't put e.g. references on redirects. Fram (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of actors who redirect to their well-known work, or musicians who redirect to their band, etc. It is quite common to add these redirects to categories, so putting authority control is a similar idea. No strong opinion on it though, except that bots/scripts probably shouldn't be automatically removing this information — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not really similar. Putting these pages in categories mean that they can be seen when browsing the category. Authority control serves no such purpose, I compared it to putting references on a redirect because that (or external links) is a much more comparable use case. These aren't seen unless you open the redirect, which isn't the purpose of a redirect. Fram (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What about Category:Redirect templates and Template:Redirect category shell? They can't be seen unless you view the redirect — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of those for this discussion? They are basically maintenance templates, not content. Fram (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for informing me of this issue. For the record, it isn't that the script purposefully removes the template, it just strips all unrelated content that isn't typically used for redirects. I would be more than happy to add a checkbox to the script and automatic keeping of existing instances of the template.

I don't have a strong option on this matter, and I would be happy either way. While redirects aren't really supposed to be viewed by the average viewer, it could be helpful to the odd viewer trying to get more information on a certain subject, especially if they aren't familiar with Wikidata.

Another thought could be to simply improve {{R with Wikidata item}} with more information guiding the reader to the item entry, rather than then having to add both templates to applicable redirects. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any examples, so created this one for discussion purposes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram: All identifiers in the template come from Wikidata, but not all Wikidata items have those identifiers. Take Template:Authority control (Q3907614) itself. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Phase 3

I propose shortly to move ahead with phase 3 on the roadmap started in 2022. It is now extremely rare to find a page with a local parameter, so I assume that all users of this template are now aware of familiar with adding these identifiers to Wikidata. This would also bring the template in line with many other language versions (Spanish, Italian, Japanese, ...) which do not accept local parameters. We will continue indefinitely to track cases when an editor tries to add a local parameter, to ensure that no data is lost — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)